4 ms·

I'm not sure what the benefit to locally hosted solutions like KeePassXC are to BitWarden. You can't beat BitWarden's ease of use and you don't have to manage

by skrowl 6y ago

I'm not sure what the benefit to locally hosted solutions like KeePassXC are to BitWarden. You can't beat BitWarden's ease of use and you don't have to manage storage / backups yourself. Bitwarden is open source, has passed multiple independant audits and has easily verified 0 knowledge / e2e crypto (they can't see your data on their servers). What more could you want?

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
To feel superior to the unwashed masses
class4behavior 6y ago
>You can't beat BitWarden's ease of use and you don't have to manage storage / backups yourself. You're managing your "self-hosted solution" and only a tiny share of people runs one anyway. Syncing a file along with other data/backups is a sufficient compromise between security and convenience for many people.
smt88 6y ago
I have some contracts with large corps and US govt (non-military) that forbid my use of any password manager with cloud hosting. The language is somewhat ambiguous and obviously written before things like LastPass/Dashlane/etc. even existed, but I tend not to editorialize when it comes to security reqs. Maybe BitWarden would work for my purposes, but I have no complaints about KeePass, so I don't know why I'd switch.
approxim8ion 6y ago
I'll give you two reasons I use it over Bitwarden. Bitwarden autotype is very sketchy on my (admittedly older) Android phone. For some apps it straight up doesn't show up, on others the prompt disappears when I need it. The alternative is to use the system clipboard which is absolutely terrible and no one should ever do it, especially on smartphones. The special keyboard option that KeepassDX and Keepass2Android provide are significantly better without being too inconvenient in my opinion. Whether or not the autotype issue is fixed on newer Android versions is irrelevant, I shouldn't have to switch out a perfectly working phone just for a workflow I can live without. Also Keepass has been a standard for so long that I just trust it more. If tomorrow Bitwarden were to disappear off the face of the planet (I'm aware it doesn't work that way), I'd have to export my passwords and look for another solution. This is probably mitigated by self-hosting but I have neither the infrastructure nor the inclination to do so. I can theoretically at least continue to use my kdbx file on any platform without issue, sticking to a particular version of a client that I like or switching it out for another if I'm so inclined. No hijinks involved. I will concede that the sync is not as convenient but I use Syncthing and Snapdrop for a bunch of other stuff already so I don't mind, not to mention the fact that I feel better about my vault never being exposed to the internet in any form.
Nullabillity 6y ago
I'd rather not run .NET (or especially MSSQL) if I can avoid it. I get enough of that shitshow at work... Besides, Syncthing (with history enabled) gives me backups "for free" as part of the regular sync, whereas I'd still have to set that up myself when hosting Bitwarden.
ldng 6y ago
On a quick scan, the "BITWARDEN LICENSE AGREEMENT" mentions "Commercial Module License". So some sort of Opencore and, TBH, I'm too lazy to check out further the implications. On the other hand bitwarden_rs is GPL-v3. Like it or not, at the very, it is very clear where it stands. Interestingly, KeePassXC has multiple licences and take the time to neatly list what is under which.
- ronnier 6y ago
  I don't use any of those. This is written in Go and doesn't use MySql. It's an encrypted file.

by skrowl 6y ago

NikolaeVarius 6y ago

To feel superior to the unwashed masses

class4behavior 6y ago

>You can't beat BitWarden's ease of use and you don't have to manage storage / backups yourself. You're managing your "self-hosted solution" and only a tiny share of people runs one anyway. Syncing a file along with other data/backups is a sufficient compromise between security and convenience for many people.

smt88 6y ago

I have some contracts with large corps and US govt (non-military) that forbid my use of any password manager with cloud hosting. The language is somewhat ambiguous and obviously written before things like LastPass/Dashlane/etc. even existed, but I tend not to editorialize when it comes to security reqs. Maybe BitWarden would work for my purposes, but I have no complaints about KeePass, so I don't know why I'd switch.

approxim8ion 6y ago

I'll give you two reasons I use it over Bitwarden. Bitwarden autotype is very sketchy on my (admittedly older) Android phone. For some apps it straight up doesn't show up, on others the prompt disappears when I need it. The alternative is to use the system clipboard which is absolutely terrible and no one should ever do it, especially on smartphones. The special keyboard option that KeepassDX and Keepass2Android provide are significantly better without being too inconvenient in my opinion. Whether or not the autotype issue is fixed on newer Android versions is irrelevant, I shouldn't have to switch out a perfectly working phone just for a workflow I can live without. Also Keepass has been a standard for so long that I just trust it more. If tomorrow Bitwarden were to disappear off the face of the planet (I'm aware it doesn't work that way), I'd have to export my passwords and look for another solution. This is probably mitigated by self-hosting but I have neither the infrastructure nor the inclination to do so. I can theoretically at least continue to use my kdbx file on any platform without issue, sticking to a particular version of a client that I like or switching it out for another if I'm so inclined. No hijinks involved. I will concede that the sync is not as convenient but I use Syncthing and Snapdrop for a bunch of other stuff already so I don't mind, not to mention the fact that I feel better about my vault never being exposed to the internet in any form.

Nullabillity 6y ago

I'd rather not run .NET (or especially MSSQL) if I can avoid it. I get enough of that shitshow at work... Besides, Syncthing (with history enabled) gives me backups "for free" as part of the regular sync, whereas I'd still have to set that up myself when hosting Bitwarden.

ldng 6y ago

On a quick scan, the "BITWARDEN LICENSE AGREEMENT" mentions "Commercial Module License". So some sort of Opencore and, TBH, I'm too lazy to check out further the implications. On the other hand bitwarden_rs is GPL-v3. Like it or not, at the very, it is very clear where it stands. Interestingly, KeePassXC has multiple licences and take the time to neatly list what is under which.

ronnier 6y ago
I don't use any of those. This is written in Go and doesn't use MySql. It's an encrypted file.